Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1698944260099.pdf (Uganda)
_l-l: ,.

.

- l:.--'.:..1-r:.

, 't.

::1., tT 3:-, '.."'l': PARTIAMENT OT UGANDA MINORITY REPORT ON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF I N TORMATION COMMU N ICATION IECH NO IOGY & NATIONAL GUTDANCE ON THE COMPUTER MTSUSE (AMENDMENT) BrtL, 2022 Moved Under Rule 205 of lhe Rules of Procedure SEPTEMBER,2022 I.0 lntroduclion; We ocknowledge thot whereos the odvenl of technology ond use of computers hove ployed o big role in the development ond modernlzoilon of the world.
technology is ossocioied with some mishops ond os o result our counlry is focing lhe effecls of computer misuse ond monipulotion of technology.

Il is ogoinst this bockground thoi we enocted vorious lows to remedy the mischiefs ossocioted with monipulotion ond obuse of technology these include; the Computer Misuse Act.

201 l; The Penol Code Act, Cop.


120; The Ugondo Communicotions Act, 2013; The Doto Prolection ond Privocy Act, 201 9; The Regulotion of Inlerception of Communicolions Act, 2010; The Eleclronic of Tronsoctions Acl; ond The Access to lnformotion Act, 2005; omong others.

On l?th .

)uly 2022, Hon.

Mohommod Nsereko, MP.


Kompolo Centrol tobled lhe Computer Misuse (Amendment) 9il, 2022 ond lhe some wos referred 1o the Committee on Informotion, Communicotion Technology, ond Notionol Guidonce in occordonce wilh Rule 129(l ) of the Rules of Procedure of Porlioment.
Unforlunotely, upon perusol of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill,2022 ond the proposed omendmenls in the repori of the Mojority we hove esloblished thol the some do not oddress chollenges but rother would leod 1o the creolion of more mischiefs ond ombiguities.

Pursuont 1o Rule 205 of the Rules of Procedure of the Porlioment of Ugondo, we hereby present o dissentlng opinion from the opinion of the mojority of the Commitlee.
2.0 Areos of Dissent We f undomentolly differed from the position of the Mojority Report on the following ospects; 1 .

Unouthorized occess 2.

Unouthorized shoring of informolion obout children 3.

Hoie speech 4.

Unsolicited inf ormolion 5.

Mis/eoding or molicious informotion.

6.

Socio/ Medio l lPage 3.0 Dissenling Observotions.

3.0.1 Unoulhorized occess.

Clouse 2 of the Bill intends to omend Sec.


l2 of the Principol Acl by criminolizing the shoring of informotion oboul or reloting io ony person without prior outhorizotion from such o person.

This clouse duplicotes Section 4 of the Access to lnformotion Act, 2005. lt olso duplico.tes cyber lows like Section 5(l ) of the Eleckonic Tronsociions Act, 201 l. The Doto Proteclion ond Privocy Acl,2019, ond the Regulotion of Interception of Communicotion Act.
20 10 provide for the protection of personol informotion.

Besides, Arlicle 2712) of the Constitution jeolously protects the right lo privocy, ond rightly so.

lt slotes " No person sholl be subjecied to inlerference wilh the privocy of thol person's home, correspondence, communicotion or other property".

There is no reoson to legislote on this clouse.

This clouse is likely 1o undermine other very importont lows in this country like Anl- Corruption Act, the IGG Act, ond lhe Evidence Acl omong others.
The low presupposes ihot whoever does not wonl his or her voice, octs/ performonce recorded, ought to keep the some owoy from the public or those who moy record the dqiq.

The clouse prohibiting voice ond video recording if possed inio low would equolly, ond on the other side, hove on effect of fomenting recklessness by encouroging unfiltered utleronces ond coreless conduct in public ploces ond otherwlse, occosioning o toll on morols.
Recording onyone who hos ovoiled themselves to be recorded does nol ln ony woy violoie the recorded porty's righis.

lf clouse 2 is left to siond os port of the Bill, it will substqntiolly deter journolisls from corrying out investigotions on corruptlon ollegotions which, in most coses is done sieolthily ond this will subsequently kill investigotive journolism ond unjustifiobly delimit the freedom of press.
Clouse 2 is likely to jeopordize intelligence gothering ond evidence collection by securily ogencies.

Comboting crime will be very difficult when the public is restricted from the free disclosure of informotion oboui other persons.

2lPage ctl Recommendolion Clouse 2 of the Bill should be deleled since if is o duplicotion of the exrsling lows ond unjuslifiobly delimit lhe freedom of press.

3.0.2 Unouthorized shoring of informotion obout children.
Clouse 3 of the Bill seeks to protect children from being exposed digitolly without the consenl of their porenls/guordlo n. We note thot children ore olreody well protected under Section 8 of the Doto Proiection ond Privocy Act,20l9 which provides os follows; "Personol dalo reloting to children A person sholl nol collecl or process personol doto relating lo o child unless lhe colleclion or processing lhereof rs; (o) corried oul wilh the prior consenl of the porent or guardion or ony other person hoving oulhorily fo moke decisions on beholf of lhe child: (b) necessory lo comply with the low; or (c) f or reseorch or sfofislicol purposes. "
Reoding Section B of the Doto Proteclion ond Privocy Act vis-d-vis clouse 3 of the Bill leoves no conclusion, but thot they ore one ond ihe some.
Further Section I (t) (S) ond (3) of ihe children Act olso protecls the privocy of children, lhus; (1) Every child shall hove fhe righl lo: (g) safety, privocy, informolion ond occess fo bosic sociol services (3) A person who controvenes lhe provision of subseclion (1) commits on o,Tence ond is lioble on conviction, lo o fine nol exceeding one hvndred ond twenty cwrcncy poinls or imprisonmenl nof exceeding five yeors ot both.
Therefore, lhe obove cited provisions sufficiently cover the privocy of the children whereupon Clouse 3 doesn't odd ony volue in the protection of children.

3lPage Recommendolion; Clouse 3 of lhe Bill shovld be deleled since if is o duplicolion of lhe exisling lows.

3.0.3 Hote speech.

Hote speech hos no conclusive definition ond is therefore obstrocl.

il is devoid of certointy in legol interpretolion.


Precision ond clority in the definition of o crimlnol offense is essentiol if o person occused of the offense is 1o hove o foiltriol.

This is on obstroct offence thot connot be defined with precision which mokes ihe offence stoted under clouse 4 of lhe Bill ombiguous ond controry to the provisions of Article 28 (12) of fhe Constitution.

The offense is hinged on the resultont oction rolher thon the intention of lhe person shoring the informotion.
The use of the word likely is very subjective os it will depend on the feelings of the viclim ond nol the circumstonces.

There is ombiguity os to whot omounts to hostilily, ridicule, ond divisions.

The Bill does not specify who determines the noture ond mognitude of hostilily ond divisions.

All these ombiguities ore susceptible 1o obuse ond will subsequenlly occoslon injustice.
Besides the spirit ond letter of Clouse 4 of the Bill which seeks to criminolize hqle speech is sufficiently covered by the penol code Acl through penolizolion of the offences of sectorionism ond incitement io violence.
Seclion 41 (1) of the Penol Code Act criminolizes the octions of o persons who prints, publishes, mokes or ulters ony stotemeni or does ony oct which is likely to - (o)degrode, revile or expose to hotred or contempt; (b)creote olienotion or despondency of; (c)roise discontent or disoffeclion omong; or (d)promole, in ony other woy.
feelings of ill will or hostility omong or ogoinsl, ony group or body of persons on occount of religion, tribe or ethnic or regionol origin commits on offence ond is lioble on conviction to imprisonment for o lerm not exceeding five yeors.

This in essence remedies the mischief, if ony, which Clouse 4 of the seeks remedy Recommendofion.

Clouse 4 is ombiguous ond does not Necisely deline the offence creoted lhereunder, Therefore Clouse 4 should be deleled, 4lPage 3.0.4 Unsolicited informotion.
Section 2611) of lhe Electronic Tronsoctions Act, 20ll regulo.les unsolicited commerciol communicoiion to consumers of ICT services ond products.

The intended omendmenl is couched os criminqlizing unsolicited informolion which locks o definition of whol exqctly omounts or constitutes to unsoliciled informolion.
So, the obsence of cleor porometers of whot constitutes unsoliciled informolion renders clouse 5 ombiguous ond in conflict with the right to freedom of speech ond expression guoronteed by Arlicle 29. the right to occess informotion ond is o limitotion of the enjoyment of the stoted righis ond freedom conlrory to Article 43(1 ) ond (2) (c) of the Constitution.

There is informolion thot is qlreqdy in the public domoin.

Shoring of such informotion is on offense occording to this clouse.
This violotes Ariicle 43(l ) of the constitution.

lt olso cuts off investigotive journolism ond citizen journolism omong olhers.

All informotion coming into possession of on individuol or entity could poientiolly be cotegorized os solicited or unsolicited, clouse 5 could be misused ond obused by ihe Government ond its ogencies 1o curtoil shoring ond disseminotion of informotion, which would limit freedom of expression ond occess to informotion.
This clouse will be subjected to other constitutionol pelltions similor 1o section 25 of the Principol Act.

Recomrnendqfion,' Clouse 5 should be delefed.

3.0.5 Misleoding or molicious informolion.


ln the cose of Chorles Onyango Obbo ond Anor v Allorney Generol (Conslitulionol Appeol 2 of 2002) the Supreme Court held thot the penolizotion of the publicotion of folse news under Section 50 of the Penol Code is unconstiiutiono l. It ls our considered positlon thot clouse 6 conlrovenes Arlicle 92 of the Constitution of Ugondo thot Is restrictive on retrospeclive legislotion.
The soid provision restricts 5lPage Porlioment from possing ony low thot olters the decision or judgment of ony court os belween the porties io the declsion or judgmenl.

This Bill seeks to reintroduce the some offense, lhis is tontomounl to overlurning o courl judgment by legislotion.

Ihis is u nconslitutionol, we connot continue to legislote in obuse of the constitution of the Republic of Ugondo.

There is no need to odd this clouse which is obove oll unconslitutionol.
Under the low of torts, o person who publishes folse informolion ogoinsl onother con be sued for defomqtion.

Cyber Horossmenl is olso prohibited under seciion 24 of the principol Act; Section 24 of the principol Act stotes thot; One commits the offense of cyber-Horossment if she/he uses o computer, or knowingly permits ony electronic communicolion device to be used for, moking ony requesi, suggestion, or proposol thot is obscene, lewd.
loscivious or indecent; threolening to inflic.l injury or physicol horm to ihe person or property of ony person.

Offensive communicotion is prohibited under section 25 of lhe principol Act ond cyber-stolking is olso prohibited under seclion 26 of the principol Ac.l.

Recommendolion: Clouse 5 should be deleted.

3.0.6.

Sociol Medio This issue wos not discussed In lhe committee neither wos it omong the clouses the compuler misuse (Amendmeni) Bill seeks to omend.
The committee hos nol token o deep onolysis of the issue, nellher were the witnesses the commiitee inlerrogoted hod ony input.

We do not support this clouse for subsequent legislotion.

Besides the issue of sociol medio is covered in seclion ,19, 25 ond 26 of the principol Act.

Recommendotion.

The reconrmendotion to include sociol medio be rejected, Conclusion.
The enlire Bill should nol be lefl to stond os port of our lows os oll the clouses ore olreody cotered for in existing legislotion ond in some lnslonces offends the Constitution of the Republic of Ugondo.

The fundomentol rights 1o occess 6lPage informotion elecironicolly ond to express oneself over computer networks ore uttedy risked by this Bill.

lf possed into low.

it will stifle the ocquisition of informolion.


The penolties proposed in the bill ore overly horsh ond disproportionote when compored 1o similor offences in other legislotions.

This bill if possed, it will be q bod low ond lloble to conslitutionol petitions upon oscent.
7lPage PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPUTER MISUSE (AMENDMENTI B[LL,2022 CLAUSE 2 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 12 OF PRINCIPAL ACT Delete clause 2 Justifrcation Clause oJ the Btll ts duplica,tion of the existing lanas and unjust{7ablg dellmit the freedom oJ press and expresslon, CLAUSE 3: INSERTION OF SECTION 22A IN PRINCIPAL ACT Delete Cla.use 3 Justification Protection of privacy and data relating to children is covered under the existing law namely the Children Act and the Data Protection and Privacy Act, 2019.
CLAUSE 4: INSERTION OF SECTION 23A IN PRINCIPAL ACT Delete Clause 4, Justification Clause 4 ls amblguous and does not preciselg deJine the oflence credted thereunder.
CLAUSE 5: INSERTION OF SECTION 24A IN PRINCIPAL ACT Delete Clause 5 Justification SlPage The annendment is annhiguous dnd in conJTlct utith the right to Jreedom oJ speech and expression guaranteed bg Article 29, the right to access information and is a limitatlon of the enJogment of tlrc stated rights and Jreedorn contrary to Article 43(1) and (2)(c) of the Constitrttion.

This proolsion is somehou alreadg coaered under Section 26(1) of th,e Electronic Transactions Act, 20 7 7.
CLAUSE 6: INSERTION OF SECTION 26A IN PRINCIPAL ACT Delete Clause 6.

Justification The clause contradicts the Supreme Court decision in Charles Ongango Obbo and AnotLrcr Vs Attorneg General, CA No.

2 of 2OO2 uthere it uas that the penalization of tLrc publication of false neuts is unconstitutional.
Other aspects of the clause are couered under the pincipal Act wherebg Offensiue communication is prohibited under section 2 5 of the principal Act and cyber-stalking is also prohibited under section 26 of the principal Act.

INSERTION OF A CLAUSE BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA The recommendation to include social media be rejected Justification This issue u)as not discussed in the committee neitlrcr tuas it among the clauses the computer misuse (Amendment) Bill seeks to amend.
9lPage MEMBER SIGNATURE SHEET.

No Name Constituency Signature I ky^r\-r Lrq4' A Cur;if, hQR^.rqo* Go^m A l#-sr 10 | P a g e Appendix.

Panel Code Act Cap.L20 41.
Promoting sectarianism (1)A person who prints, publishes, makes or utters any statement or does any act which is likely to (a)degrade, revile or expose to hatred or contempt;(b)create alienation or despondency of;(c)raise discontent or disaffection arnong; or(d)promote, in any other way, feelings of ill will or hostility among or against, any group or body ofpersons on account ofreligion, tribe or ethnic or regional origin commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2)It shall be a defenr.

:e to a charge under subsection (1) ifthe statement was printed, published, made or uttered, or the act was done with a view to exposing, discouraging or eliminating mattcrs which promote or have a tendency to promote sectarianism.

11 | P a g e